The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just...more
Among the most established standards in patent law is that obviousness requires a motivation to combine the prior art with “a reasonable expectation of success.” The Federal Circuit alone has employed the “reasonable...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding that two patents covering enantiomerically pure compositions of the psoriasis drug Otezla® (apremilast) were valid and one patent...more
On November 4, in University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting, evidence from outside the asserted references tipped the Federal Circuit toward finding a lack of reasonable expectation of success. The Federal Circuit...more
In this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are many questions about insurance coverage. Because each policy is different, it is very difficult to generalize about insurance coverage. However, one thing we know to be true is...more
"What’s in a name?," the Bard asks in Romeo and Juliet. For some a lot, as focus turns to whether Business Interruption policies will cover the massive financial losses stemming from the coronavirus....more
In Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. v. DVO, Inc., No. 18-2571 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019), the Seventh Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, finding that the...more
In OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that a Tarceva® patent was invalid as obvious because the decision was not supported by a reasonable expectation of success....more
In a precedential opinion on October 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex, No. 2018-1925, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review...more
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC - Before Stoll, Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A pharmaceutical company’s statement touting the completion of Phase I safety trials...more
Addressing the obviousness analysis for method of treatment claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-obviousness but rejected part of its reasoning that applied lead...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court non-obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference that articulates a goal without explaining how that goal is achieved does not provide a...more
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC - Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: If the technology is complex, a party may be required to provide more...more
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, a district court determined that the claims covering a method of using the drug everolimus to treat kidney cancers were not obvious. The court found a motivation to "pursue"...more
ENDO PHARM, INC., v. ACTAVIS LLC - Before Wallach, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware....more
Under the Mayo/Alice test for patent eligibility, answering the questions of whether any particular claim is “directed to” a “judicial exception” without “significantly more” remains in many ways a substantial and...more
The Federal Circuit decision in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. addressed several aspects of obviousness doctrine. We previously wrote about the impact of a blocking patent on consideration of objective...more
A March 1, 2018 Delaware Superior Court decision in Arch Insurance Company v. Murdock has far-reaching implications for insurers providing coverage to directors and officers of Delaware corporations. The decision (i) favors...more
Addressing the issues of reasonable expectation of success and induced infringement of claims directed to a method of treatment in a particular patient population based on the results of a clinical trial, the US Court of...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin issued a key regulatory takings decision which creates a new multifactor balancing test to determine whether two adjacent properties with single ownership could...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S.S.C. June 23, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, addressed "one of the critical questions" in the law of regulatory takings:...more
Property owners who allege a regulatory taking will now need to analyze their holdings against a new, fact-specific, three-factor standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what constitutes the owners’ “whole...more
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States finally decided Murr v. Wisconsin, __ U.S. __ (2017) (Case No. 15-214), a case that addressed land use regulations that “merged” adjacent parcels (the first of which...more
Murr v. Wisconsin (June 23, 2017, Docket No. 15-214) - Why It Matters: The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of regulatory takings and, instead, made the law more confusing and less...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court declined to find that a landowner's riverfront property was the subject of a regulatory taking. In a 5-3 decision, the majority adopted a new test for defining the bounds of the...more